Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
Do Buckley and Ann have something in common?
Topic Started: Jun 15 2006, 09:14 AM (501 Views)
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
From the American Spectator:


From God to Godless: The Real Liberal Terror
By Jeffrey Lord



The book reviewers were absolutely hostile, enraged at what they read.

"The book is one which has the glow and appeal of a fiery cross on a hillside at night. There will undoubtedly be robed figures who gather to it, but the hoods will not be academic. They will cover the face," snarled one, ominously comparing it to a work of the Ku Klux Klan. "This fascist thesis," angrily spluttered another, "...This...pure fascism....What more could Hitler, Mussolini, or Stalin ask for...?" Still others piled on. The book was dismissed as a series of "fanatically emotional attacks" that "succeeded in turning the stomachs of its readers." The author drew howls of outrage, the lesser of which focused on adjectives like "rude" and "obnoxious" before descending into cries of "fascist."

The name of the book was not Godless. And the author was not Ann Coulter. The book that drew such ferocious attention was God and Man at Yale. The author, a recent Yale graduate, was a precocious William F. Buckley, Jr.

God and Man at Yale, published in 1951, was a then-startling protest about the liberal bias of a major university, in this case Buckley's alma mater. What was equally startling was the reaction to it described above. But if this type of savage response was news in 1951, the lesson from the reaction to Ann Coulter's Godless and her criticisms of four politically liberal 9/11 widows is that, sadly, absolutely nothing has changed when it comes to liberal reactions to a challenge of their worldview. In fact, Ms. Coulter is only the latest in a long line of prominent conservative writers, thinkers, activists and leaders to be similarly assailed.

From Buckley to Goldwater, from Reagan to Gingrich, from Rush Limbaugh to Clarence Thomas and Ann Coulter, conservatives of different styles and mediums have been treated precisely the same. No matter the topic, no matter the personality, whether the year is 1951 or 2006 they are angrily assailed for their views.

Buckley was the first target of this fury with his tome on the liberal goings-on at Yale. For Goldwater and Reagan it was their warnings about too much government and the human yearning for freedom. For Gingrich it was the calling to account of forty years of failed policies on everything from welfare to taxes to the arrogance of congressional power. Limbaugh captured an audience of millions by laughingly spinning out the results of the latest liberal idea run amok, while Thomas propounded a conservative legal doctrine from the bench.

As with Coulter (and many others -- think of talkers/writers Sean Hannity and Mark Levin, media mogul Rupert Murdoch, culture maven David Horowitz, and more), in every single instance their words and actions are met with some firestorm of name-calling, verbal abuse, attempts at censorship and worse. While these furies take different forms, they have exactly the same end goal: to so discredit both message and messenger that they will never again be allowed to exist in polite society again.


FOR BUCKLEY IT WAS SCATHING book reviews. He was lucky. For Goldwater, the first modern conservative to win a presidential nomination, the unending torrent of abuse verged on the apoplectic. CBS News solemnly reported the week of his nomination that Goldwater's first act after the convention would be to travel to Germany for a visit to "Berchtesgaden, once Hitler's stamping ground." And what will the conservative Goldwater do once there? "There are signs," CBS reporter Daniel Schorr said ominously, "that the American and German right wings are joining up..." Got that? Barry Goldwater, said CBS in so many words, was really a Nazi. With a presidential nomination in hand, he was literally heading to Hitler's home to get the international Nazi movement rolling. The story, from the trip to Germany to the visit to Hitler's estate was, of course, false from beginning to end.

Equally hysterical was a liberal magazine that published a 64-page "psychological study" of the candidate which began: "Do you think Barry Goldwater is psychologically fit to serve as President of the United States?" You guessed it -- after claiming to poll over 12,000 psychiatrists across the country, the answer was no. New York Times columnist C.L. Sulzberger answered the question this way: "The possibility exists that, should he (Goldwater) enter the White House, there might not be a day after tomorrow." In case voters didn't get the message, Democratic strategist and LBJ aide Bill Moyers designed the so-called "daisy commercial" that saw a child counting the petals of a flower disappear in the mushroom cloud of a nuclear explosion.

"It is extremely interesting how people react to the telling of the truth," Buckley wrote in an introduction to a 1970s edition of his classic. Indeed. What seemingly frightens liberals is the penetrating questions and different policy proscriptions that challenge their once secure worldview. As time has moved on and liberal solutions have been tried and found drastically wanting, the American public quite naturally has looked elsewhere for answers.

For the liberals of 1951 the truly frightening aspect of Buckley's book was not just what it said but how it sold. It became something new in America -- a conservative bestseller. In the words of its publisher, God and Man at Yale was "a sensation." The same phenomenon happened again in 1960 when Goldwater wrote a 123-page book entitled The Conscience of a Conservative. Ignored by the mainstream media, with a first printing of a mere 10,000 copies, it sold more than four million in hardback and paperback. By now this pattern is familiar. Coulter's latest book is number one on Amazon and -- teeth-gratingly for liberals -- zooming up the New York Times bestseller list. Fox News is so popular that Kofi Annan's deputy accuses both Fox (and Limbaugh) with undermining the United Nations simply by being on the air.


MAKE NO MISTAKE. The furious reaction to Coulter in this latest episode is not about her manners but her willingness to, as liberals love to say, "speak truth to power" -- the power of the once mighty liberal establishment. From the moment Buckley's book first hit the stands, this is what these furious reactions to conservatives have been all about. And from the liberal perspective there is a true terror at what is yet to come. Buckley began by taking on the world of academia in book form, then established a conservative magazine. Now conservative books, authors and magazines abound. Goldwater paved the way in politics with a move on the presidency, something finally -- and spectacularly --accomplished by Reagan. Gingrich retook the Congress. David Horowitz zeroes in on the culture. Limbaugh spawned talk radio. Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, and now Alito sit on the Supreme Court, with enough conservative lawyers to fill Yankee Stadium waiting for seats on the once sacrosanct liberal precincts of the federal bench. Rupert Murdoch has had the gall to invent Fox News, a conservative TV channel, and, most humiliatingly, take over a Hollywood studio. Even the once safely liberal mainline Protestant churches -- the Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians and United Church of Christ -- are alarmed to find conservatives in their pews not only speaking up but seeking power within church hierarchies traditionally filled by liberals. What's next? Conservative Spielbergs and Norman Lears? Ben Stein as Ben Bernanke? Statements from the National Council of Churches praising the liberation of Iraq?

Piece by piece, trench by trench, the empire that was once American liberalism is under assault by men and women of all ages, incomes, faiths, races and professions. From academia to politics to religion, the media and the law, the liberal Humpty Dumpty has fallen from its once dominant perch. No matter how hard they try, liberals will never be able to put it back together again. The venom spewed at Ann Coulter's demand to liberals to stop hiding behind grief or war records or illness in a debate is not really about Ann Coulter at all. It is one very influential section of American society realizing that their world, the world they created and ran for most of the twentieth century, is dying in front of their eyes.

To put two female faces of 2006 on what began with Mr. Buckley's 1951 "sensation," Katie may be moving from morning to night, but it's Ann everybody is reading.

No wonder they're terrified.
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
What all these writers seem incapable of acknowledging is that the lunacy is symmetrical.

To complain about the treatment which Rupert Murdoch receives, for example, is laughable. Read the conservative British newspapers and what they say about liberals, or socialists as they would call them over there. If you really want an education, read what they were saying about them in the 80's, during Margaret Thatcher's tenure. It was absolutely disgusting, and extremely one-sided. At the time there was a huge majority of the press that was hopelessly partisan, and not a little of it was owned by Murdoch. The character assassination of people such as Ken Livingstone, Tony Benn, Bernie Grant, etc. was appalling.

Hypocrisy.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Phlebas
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
Jolly
Jun 15 2006, 09:14 AM
Do Buckley and Ann have something in common?

They both smell like the vacuum cleaner at the New Haven Yacht Club smoking lounge??

Actually, they're both concervative, but one of them has a brain, and has actually been influential for conservatism.
Random FML: Today, I was fired by my boss in front of my coworkers. It would have been nice if I could have left the building before they started celebrating. FML

The founding of the bulk of the world's nation states post 1914 is based on self-defined nationalisms. The bulk of those national movements involve territory that was ethnically mixed. The foundation of many of those nation states involved population movements in the aftermath. When the only one that is repeatedly held up as unjust and unjustifiable is the Zionist project, the term anti-semitism may very well be appropriate. - P*D


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Coulter has not influenced conservatives?
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Phlebas
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
Jolly
Jun 15 2006, 11:12 AM
Coulter has not influenced conservatives?

They laughed. They cringed. But you can't compare the influence WFB had to what Ann Coulter has. That' like comparing John Maynard Keynes to Al Franken.
Random FML: Today, I was fired by my boss in front of my coworkers. It would have been nice if I could have left the building before they started celebrating. FML

The founding of the bulk of the world's nation states post 1914 is based on self-defined nationalisms. The bulk of those national movements involve territory that was ethnically mixed. The foundation of many of those nation states involved population movements in the aftermath. When the only one that is repeatedly held up as unjust and unjustifiable is the Zionist project, the term anti-semitism may very well be appropriate. - P*D


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nina
Senior Carp
John D'Oh
Jun 15 2006, 10:32 AM
What all these writers seem incapable of acknowledging is that the lunacy is symmetrical.

Eggzackly.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Nina
Jun 15 2006, 02:08 PM
John D'Oh
Jun 15 2006, 10:32 AM
What all these writers seem incapable of acknowledging is that the lunacy is symmetrical.

Eggzackly.

But that's not quite the truth.

If one examines the numbers, about 20% of American would identify themselves as liberals, while somewhere between 30-35% identify themselves as conservatives.

That is not a true bell curve by any stretch of the imagination.

Annie has got a lot bigger choir to preach to, so it stands to reason that her impact is bigger than say, an Al Franken, or similar idealogue.
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Jolly
Jun 15 2006, 04:17 PM
Nina
Jun 15 2006, 02:08 PM
John D'Oh
Jun 15 2006, 10:32 AM
What all these writers seem incapable of acknowledging is that the lunacy is symmetrical.

Eggzackly.

But that's not quite the truth.

If one examines the numbers, about 20% of American would identify themselves as liberals, while somewhere between 30-35% identify themselves as conservatives.

That is not a true bell curve by any stretch of the imagination.

Annie has got a lot bigger choir to preach to, so it stands to reason that her impact is bigger than say, an Al Franken, or similar idealogue.

So there's more whackos on the right? ;)

My point was that Coulter goes on and on about all these awful liberals being so nasty, and totally ignores the stupidity and unpleasantness of some conservatives. In fact, she doesn't just ignore it, she totally denies it. The same goes for Moore, Franken, or whoever, it's just in reverse. They're all as bad as each other, and they're totally blind to their own narrowness of vision. Wankers.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Jolly
Jun 15 2006, 03:17 PM
Nina
Jun 15 2006, 02:08 PM
John D'Oh
Jun 15 2006, 10:32 AM
What all these writers seem incapable of acknowledging is that the lunacy is symmetrical.

Eggzackly.

But that's not quite the truth.

If one examines the numbers, about 20% of American would identify themselves as liberals, while somewhere between 30-35% identify themselves as conservatives.

That is not a true bell curve by any stretch of the imagination.

Annie has got a lot bigger choir to preach to, so it stands to reason that her impact is bigger than say, an Al Franken, or similar idealogue.

Only if what she's saying is persuasive.

A mental midget with an IQ of 35 might be conservative, but wouldn't have a lot of impact.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Phlebas
Jun 15 2006, 12:07 PM
But you can't compare the influence WFB had to what Ann Coulter has. That' like comparing John Maynard Keynes to Al Franken.

True. Keynes was much funnier than Franken.
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
John D'Oh's home-spun philosphy, old-chestnut number 54:

There's thinkers, and there's talkers. There's not many who can do both.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
There's also gun chewers and there's walkers.....
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
ivorythumper
Jun 15 2006, 06:42 PM
gun chewers

I knew you came from a tough neighbourhood, IT, but I didn't realise it was that tough... :lol:
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
:lol:

Flatbush -- Brooklyn -- yagaddaprob'mwiddat?
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve Miller
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
Jolly
Jun 15 2006, 01:17 PM
If one examines the numbers, about 20% of American would identify themselves as liberals, while somewhere between 30-35% identify themselves as conservatives.


Yes, but I'm a Conservative and I have exactly no time for Coulter.

I think you'll find a lot of folks out there like me.
Wag more
Bark less
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Steve Miller
Jun 15 2006, 06:51 PM
Jolly
Jun 15 2006, 01:17 PM
If one examines the numbers, about 20% of American would identify themselves as liberals, while somewhere between 30-35% identify themselves as conservatives.


Yes, but I'm a Conservative and I have exactly no time for Coulter.

I think you'll find a lot of folks out there like me.

And I'm a liberal who thinks Michael Moore is an embarrassment. Neither Coulter nor Moore think I exist.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
John D'Oh
Jun 15 2006, 05:54 PM
Steve Miller
Jun 15 2006, 06:51 PM
Jolly
Jun 15 2006, 01:17 PM
If one examines the numbers, about 20% of American would identify themselves as liberals, while somewhere between 30-35% identify themselves as conservatives.


Yes, but I'm a Conservative and I have exactly no time for Coulter.

I think you'll find a lot of folks out there like me.

And I'm a liberal who thinks Michael Moore is an embarrassment. Neither Coulter nor Moore think I exist.

You post, therefore you am.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Steve Miller
Jun 15 2006, 03:51 PM

Yes, but I'm a Conservative and I have exactly no time for Coulter.

I think you'll find a lot of folks out there like me.

Steve:

I am intrigued that you consider yourself conservative. I am not being the least bit contentious -- just truly interested.

You had said something a month ago or so that precipated a thread on neocons vs paleocons. I can see in certain aspects where you might be a conservative --esp fiscally (small business owner with employees) -- and other areas where you would be (what I consider to be) a social liberal -- abortion rights, gay marriage, anti-Bush. I sort of assumed that you were a registered Democrat and/or generally voted the Democratic ticket. That of course is an assumption, but that is how I'd wager in a bet.

Would you mind explaining your self definition of how you see yourself as a conservative?

Respectfully,

Steve (not that I don't have time for Coulter, but I don't pay attention to her except for entertainment value).
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
She is certainly entertaining but not particularly edifying. I can find edification almost anywhere.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
I'd edificate her right now, on the spot....... :D
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
Posted Image


Whew! For a second there (I'm tired), I thought you said you'd defectate right there on the spot!
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve Miller
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
I'm a Conservative of the old-fashioned sort.

Fiscally conservative to be sure - if I'm gonna pay for something, I want to get my money's worth. I'm not getting that for the most part, and I don't like it. I do like the way Ah-nold is handling things in California - no taxes have been raised and the deficit is being paid down. I knew they could do it if they had to.

I don't care much for my tax dollars being distributed giant multinational corporations. My business has to stand on it's own - theirs should too. I can be talked in to various exceptions, but for the most part this is the yardstick I use.

Socially, I am more of a Libertarian. Leave people alone unless there is a compelling public need to do otherwise. This is the basis for my view of Gay Marriage - leave 'em alone - they're not hurting anybody. It's my view on gun control as well - if people want to have guns they should be allowed to do so, and the current regulations seem to work OK.

I don't want the government messing with my religion, and I don't like religions messing in my government. The farther apart you can keep those two, the better I like it. I prefer to let people make their own decisions regarding matters of faith, and I'll the thank the government to extend the same courtesy to me.

I favor making abortion the option of last resort, but not eliminating it entirely. The current rules seem to be about as good a compromise as any we're likely to get. It's a very personal decision and I prefer to let people make their own choice once they're fully aware of the options available. Educate 'em and then leave 'em alone.

I am a registered Democrat, but only because I'm too lazy to change the choice I made when I turned 18. It doesn't make that much difference to me; I'll vote one way in one election and another way in the next depending on the choices offered.

You might say I'm a classic small-government paleo Burkian-Kerkian
conservative of the neo-Libertarian sort.

Then again, you might not. :sombrero:
Wag more
Bark less
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Steve Miller
Jun 15 2006, 08:15 PM
I'm a Conservative of the old-fashioned sort.

Fiscally conservative to be sure - if I'm gonna pay for something, I want to get my money's worth. I'm not getting that for the most part, and I don't like it. I do like the way Ah-nold is handling things in California - no taxes have been raised and the deficit is being paid down. I knew they could do it if they had to.

I don't care much for my tax dollars being distributed giant multinational corporations. My business has to stand on it's own - theirs should too. I can be talked in to various exceptions, but for the most part this is the yardstick I use.

Socially, I am more of a Libertarian. Leave people alone unless there is a compelling public need to do otherwise. This is the basis for my view of Gay Marriage - leave 'em alone - they're not hurting anybody. It's my view on gun control as well - if people want to have guns they should be allowed to do so, and the current regulations seem to work OK.

I don't want the government messing with my religion, and I don't like religions messing in my government. The farther apart you can keep those two, the better I like it. I prefer to let people make their own decisions regarding matters of faith, and I'll the thank the government to extend the same courtesy to me.

I favor making abortion the option of last resort, but not eliminating it entirely. The current rules seem to be about as good a compromise as any we're likely to get. It's a very personal decision and I prefer to let people make their own choice once they're fully aware of the options available. Educate 'em and then leave 'em alone.

I am a registered Democrat, but only because I'm too lazy to change the choice I made when I turned 18. It doesn't make that much difference to me; I'll vote one way in one election and another way in the next depending on the choices offered.

You might say I'm a classic small-government paleo Burkian-Kerkian
conservative of the neo-Libertarian sort.

Then again, you might not. :sombrero:

Sounds a lot like a mix between Nelson Rockefeller and Barry Goldwater, leaning towards Barry.

Yep, classic conservative is a good description.
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Thanks, Steve -- I appreciate your taking the time to answer my question and indulge my speculation. I respect your principles.

Regards,

Steve
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Steve Miller
Jun 15 2006, 04:51 PM
Jolly
Jun 15 2006, 01:17 PM
If one examines the numbers, about 20% of American would identify themselves as liberals, while somewhere between 30-35% identify themselves as conservatives.


Yes, but I'm a Conservative and I have exactly no time for Coulter.

I think you'll find a lot of folks out there like me.

I would not peg you a a conservative.

Perhaps in fiscal matters, but not otherwise.
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1